Here is the AvHerald article on the incident. It includes some pics, including a close-up of the Rolls Royce Trent 972 powerplant that failed, which hung in the # 2 position. Also, a pic taken from inside the aircraft shows damage to the leading edge of the wing, indicating debris punctured the wing. This could have been a lot worse, as fuel and hydraulic lines run through the leading edge of the wing.

"SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:Wear, beyond Engine Manual limits, has been identified on the abutment faces of the splines on the Trent 900 Intermediate Pressure (IP) shaft rigid coupling on several engines during strip. The shaft to coupling spline interface provides the means of controlling the turbine axial setting and wear through of the splines would permit the IP turbine to move rearwards.

Rearward movement of the IP turbine would enable contact with static turbine components and would result in loss of engine performance with potential for in-flight shut down, oil migration and oil fire below the LP turbine discs prior to sufficient indication resulting in loss of LP turbine disc integrity.

We are issuing this AD to detect rearward movement of the IP turbine, which could result in loss of disc integrity, an uncontained failure of the engine, and damage to the airplane."

Also, an AD regarding the Trent 900 Series HP Turbine Nozzle Guide Vane (NGV) Convex Surfaces cracking resulting in a risk of fracture to the HP Turbine Blade, which may also be related to this incident. The AD was effective 10/14/2009, and is linked to below.

The AD makes you wonder who would be at fault for this: QFA, or Rolls-Royce?

If the AD is valid, that would mean that the FAA (and every other aviation governing body) would have received the same directive. Wouldn't that disseminated to the airlines, wouldn't it be the airline's responsibility to comply with the directive? If so, wouldn't QFA be negligent in this?

This totally puts Airbus in the clear, since the AD is for the engines, not the aircraft; Rationale being that UAE and AFR are still flying theirs (albeit with GE/PW engines). But the question remains: who gets the blame: RR for the issue altogether with the Trent 900, or QFA for not responding to the AD?

I hope this is not bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner program. Rolls Royce Trent engines were on the ZA001 and ZA002 test aircraft heading for international markets (ANA). The Trents on the Dreamliner were not 900s (1000s I think), but still Boeing would have one more checkpoint to confirm they're OK for commercial use - hopefully not another delay for the program.

I hope this is not bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner program. Rolls Royce Trent engines were on the ZA001 and ZA002 test aircraft heading for international markets (ANA). The Trents on the Dreamliner were not 900s (1000s I think), but still Boeing would have one more checkpoint to confirm they're OK for commercial use - hopefully not another delay for the program.

This depents if the 787 needs full thrust at take-off, like a 757 which is overpowered, that one never reaches it's maximum thrust, protected by EEC's. The full power would be used at high altitudes then...

And as I read wear came in, these engines are allmost brand new, as is the A380 itself... well the manufacturer found a possible problem and is working on it, should be ok then

I hope this is not bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner program. Rolls Royce Trent engines were on the ZA001 and ZA002 test aircraft heading for international markets (ANA). The Trents on the Dreamliner were not 900s (1000s I think), but still Boeing would have one more checkpoint to confirm they're OK for commercial use - hopefully not another delay for the program.

The Rolls Royce Powerplant being used on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is indeed the Trent 1000. The ADs apply only to the RB211 and Trent 900 Series powerplants.

Boeing has only two powerplant options at this point for the 787.

The Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 is a new ultra high thrust variant of the Trent family and uses a three-shaft layout.

The other option comes out of the GE stable. The General Electric GENX (GE Next Generation) engine is a derivative of the GE90 engine and uses composite fan blades, a high-pressure ratio compressor and a single annular combustor where the compressed air and fuel are mixed, to give very low level of emissions.

"Engineers reported on Nov 6th, that the intermediate pressure turbine disk of engine #2 had failed. The cause of that failure is still being investigated. Once on the ground the crew noticed they could not shut down the #1 engine due to wiring damage. Emergency services doused the engine to shut it down. The Trent 900 engine has been subject to an Airworthiness Directive by EASA requiring the intermediate pressure shaft coupling splines to be inspected for excessive wear, which was found beyond material limits on a few engines. Engineers are looking whether these problems have resurfaced again, but do not believe this engine failure is related."

I hope this is not bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner program. Rolls Royce Trent engines were on the ZA001 and ZA002 test aircraft heading for international markets (ANA). The Trents on the Dreamliner were not 900s (1000s I think), but still Boeing would have one more checkpoint to confirm they're OK for commercial use - hopefully not another delay for the program.

The Rolls Royce Powerplant being used on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is indeed the Trent 1000. The ADs apply only to the RB211 and Trent 900 Series powerplants.

Boeing has only two powerplant options at this point for the 787.

The Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 is a new ultra high thrust variant of the Trent family and uses a three-shaft layout.

The other option comes out of the GE stable. The General Electric GENX (GE Next Generation) engine is a derivative of the GE90 engine and uses composite fan blades, a high-pressure ratio compressor and a single annular combustor where the compressed air and fuel are mixed, to give very low level of emissions.

Didn't the Trent 1000s actually blow up while on demonstration for Boeing for the B787? I remember reading somewhere that it did...

"On Nov 8th Qantas reported, that during checks of all Trent 970 and 972 engines they have identified three engines in Qantas' fleet of A380s that showed slight anomalies, oil in areas were no oil should be. In another press release Qantas reported that the investigation into the uncontained engine failure focusses on the possibility of an oil leak in the turbine area though investigation continues into other areas as well to rule out other possible issues."

"Rolls Royce reported on Nov 8th that they are making progress in understanding what caused the failure of the Qantas engine. It has become clear that this failure is specific to the Trent 900 series, the failure of the test Trent 1000 was unrelated."

From the updated AvHerald article. There is also a new pic added, half of a turbine disc was found on the ground in Batam.

"Analysis of the preliminary elements from the incident investigation shows that an oil fire in the HP/IP structure cavity may have caused the failure of the Intermediate Pressure Turbine (IPT) Disc.

This condition, if not detected, could ultimately result in uncontained engine failure potentially leading to damage to the aeroplane and hazards to persons or property on the ground.

For the reasons described above and pending conclusion of the incident investigation, this AD requires repetitive inspections of the Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) stage 1 blades and case drain, HP/IP structure air buffer cavity and oil service tubes in order to detect any abnormal oil leakage, and if any discrepancy is found, to prohibit further engine operation."

"On Nov 13th the ATSB reported, that engine #2 has been removed from the airframe and is being transported to an engineering facility in Singapore under ATSB supervision for further examination. The removal of the engine also permits a more thorough examination of the damage to the surrounding systems and the wing. The search for missing engine parts in Batam (see picture below) is increasingly difficult because of terrain and virgin jungle. Both black boxes have been downloaded, in addition the quick access recorder data including engine parameters not available on the flight data recorder have been downloaded after some difficulty. Due to the failure of shutting engine #1 down, which kept power supply up for the CVR, the relevant portion during the engine failure on the cockpit voice recorder was overwritten. The ATSB has already begun to prepare the release of a first interim report by December 3rd."

"On Nov 12th Rolls Royce said in a press release that the examination of the accident engine as well as the inspection results permitted Rolls Royce to draw two key conclusions:

- The issue is specific to the Trent 900 engine series.- The failure was confined to a specific component in the turbine area of the engine. This caused an oil fire, which led to the release of the intermediate pressure turbine disc.

The inspections are going to continue and will be supplemented by the replacement of the relevant module according to an agreed programme."

Check out this pic of three Qantas A380s parked at KLAX during the self-imposed grounding. The pic was taken 11/07/10. Two of the A380s have all four sets of cowlings opened up...one has them all closed, also a Boeing 747-400 joins them on the ramp.

"Airbus later reported, that the aircraft sustained wiring cuts, the loss of the green hydraulic system and some structural damage as result of the #2 engine uncontained failure. The crew maintained control of the aircraft throughout the flight with autopilot being engaged until 700 feet radar altitude on approach to Singapore, engines #1, #3 and #4 were manually controlled until landing. The landing was done with flaps configuration 3 due to slats being unavailable. The aircraft landed 100 minutes after the engine failure, following the landing engine #1 could not be shut down due to wiring damage which prevented the LP and HP valves to be closed."

"On Nov 17th the ATSB reported, that the engine has been removed from the aircraft (see photos below) and is now being dismantled. The low pressure turbine has already been removed to allow examination of the damage in the intermediate pressure turbine area. The aircraft examination is continuing, a number of wing and body fairing panels have been removed from the aircraft to facilitate the examination of the underlying structures and systems. This work is going to continue at least for the remainder of the week. The search in Batam for debris has recovered several turbine blades and blade attachments but failed to retrieve the missing parts of the turbine disk."

"On Nov 22nd the ATSB reported, that the low pressure and intermediate pressure turbine modules including the shafts have been removed from the engine. Together with the recovered parts of the intermediate pressure turbine those parts of interest are being shipped to Rolls Royce for further examination under the supervision of the British AAIB. The examination of the airframe is continuing with the focus now on hydraulic, mechanical and electric systems that have been affected by engine debris. The ATSB expects their on-site investigators will be able to return to Australia by Friday Nov 26th. No further update is to be expected until the release of the preliminary report on Dec 3rd."

"On Nov 22nd the EASA released an updated Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2010-242-E, which supersedes EAD 2010-236-E following progress in the accident investigation of flight QF-32.

The EASA wrote: "The results of this analysis show the need to amend the inspection procedure, retaining the inspection of the air buffer cavity and focusing on the oil service tubes within the HP/IP structure. For the reasons described above, this AD partially retains the requirements of AD 2010-0236-E, which is superseded, and requires implementation of the amended procedure and accomplishment of the associated inspections."

Rolls Royce released an updated inspection procedure in their "Non Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) 72-AG590 Revision 2, Section 3, paragraphs 3.A or 3.B, as applicable to the engine configuration.", which is now to be repeated at the latest every 20 flight cycles.

"On Dec 2nd 2010 the ATSB released a safety recommendation to Rolls Royce demanding RR should address a safety issue with the manufacturing process of stub pipes, that were identified with an axial misalignment of an area of counter-boring within the inner diameter of the stub pipe leading to a localized thinning of the pipe wall on one side. The ATSB reported, that fatigue cracking had been discovered within a stub pipe (see picture below) feeding oil into the HP/IP (high pressue/intermediate pressure) bearing structure. While investigation of the engine failure is continuing it has been identified that the leakage of oil into the HP/IP bearing structure buffer space and a subsequent oil fire within that area was central to the engine failure and liberation of the IP turbine disk. The area of fatigue cracking was associated with the area of pipe wall thinning."